TOWN OF PRINCETOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PUBLIC HEARING
Joseph Galea
September 22, 2008
PRESENT: Victor Benson
Samuel Salamone
Rich Olsen - Alternate
Tim Bishop
Eric Plura - Chairman
Absent: Joe Jurczynski
ALSO PRESENT: Gino Santabarbara, Tom and Sarah Ketchum, Marvin & Maryjane Blessing, Joe & Sylvia Galea, Mike and Angela Galea, Michael Jackson and Town Attorney - Cheryl E. Sarjeant
Minutes were taken by Dawn M. Campochiaro, Secretary
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Plura called the meeting of Zoning Board of Appeals to order at 7:43pm.
II. CORRESPONDENCE:
Dawn Campochiaro, Secretary read the following notice as posted in the Daily Gazette:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Princetown will conduct a hearing on the following proposition on Monday, September 22, 2008 at 7:30pm at the Town Hall at 165 Princetown Plaza:
Mr. Joseph Galea is hereby requesting an area variance to eliminate a property line through a built-in swimming pool on Property Tax Map#057.00-2-11 & 057.00-2-12.2 zoning law 5.2.C
Mr. Thomas Ketchum is hereby requesting an area variance to restore a stainless steel diner sign in a commercial zone property located on 655 Western Turnpike, Duanesburg, NY Tax Map# 422.600, 69-3-5.1 according to zoning law 7.9F2.
Chairman Plura asks the secretary if there was any correspondence from the Schenectady County Planning Department. Yes. The Schenectady County Department of Economic Development and Planning defers to local consideration on the area variance.
Chairman Plura asks the secretary if there was any correspondence from the Town of Princetown Planning Board: Yes.
The Planning Board, at its August 28th, 2008 meeting, discussed the applicant's request for an area variance to allow a lot line adjustment that would eliminate a property boundary going through an in-ground pool. Currently the two lots in question are legally non-conforming in size, although road frontages and setbacks meet current standards.
The lot line adjustment will serve to make Lot 1 larger by 0.097 acres and Lot 2 smaller by 0.097 acres and, thus, more non-conforming. While the problem was self-created, the only options the applicant has to rectify the problem would be to remove the pool entirely, or try to re-draw the property boundary so that each lot size stayed exactly the same. The Planning Board felt that removing the pool would be costly and unreasonable, and constraints of existing driveways and required setbacks makes an even exchange of land difficult to achieve. The proposed solution maintains standards for road frontage and setbacks (the pool will have a 20 ft. side setback as allowed under non-conforming lots). The consensus of the Board was that the small reduction in the size of Lot 2 will not adversely impact the character of the neighborhood or the environment. Visually, the area will look exactly as it does now.
Thus, it is the Planning Board's recommendation that the area variance be granted.
Chairman Plura asks who in the audience is requesting this area variance. Mr. Joseph Galea stated he was because he owns both lots and had a pool installed and didn't realize the pool ran in the middle of the two property lines.
Chairman Plura asked Mr. Galea if he received a building permit to install the swimming pool. Mr. Galea so he didn't recall having a building permit and Chairman Plura stated there was no record of a building permit recorded with the Town.
Chairman Plura asked the board members if they have any questions.
Tim Bishop states it looks like the applicant will be solving two problems with this variance: the driveway set-back and the pool position.
Chairman Plura also stated that it would be very costly and unreasonable to ask the applicant to remove the pool from the property.
Chairman Plura asks Mr. Galea is the well at the present time still hooked up from the old property; Mr. Galea stated it was disconnected. Mr. Galea stated both houses are hooked up to town water now.
III. BALANCING TEST:
The 5 points were reviewed:
•1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance.
No.
•2. Whether the applicant can achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of an area variance.
No.
•3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial.
No.
•4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
No.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.
Yes.
IV. PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Chairman Plura opens the meeting to the public.
Chairman Plura closes the meeting to the public.
Chairman Plura asks the board members to make a motion:
Tim Bishop makes the motion to approve the area variance.
Sam Salamone seconds the motion.
VI. ROLL CALL
Victor Benson - in favor of approving the area variance
Sam Salamone - in favor of approving the area variance
Tim Bishop - in favor of approving the area variance
Rich Olsen - in favor of approving the area variance
Chairman Plura - in favor of approving the area variance
Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Chairman Plura and seconded by S. Salamone
Motion carries 5-0 in favor of approving the area variance
Meeting adjourned at 8:10pm
Respectfully submitted by:_________________________________ Date:_______________
Dawn M. Campochiaro, Zoning Board Secretary
